bborchar:My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic

FTFA: "Every opioid medication is addictive," Galer said. "We are not alone. We should not be singled out. ... Our goal is for the governor to remove the ban and to be treated like every other opioid medication on the market."

OK, ban all opioids.

Tall all the prohibition rhetoric you want, offering one of the most addictive substances on the planet to people as medicine is not that great of an idea. Especially considering that it's prescribed so commonly that the majority of heroine addicts I've known started with pills. And I've known plenty: 2 dead, 1 in prison, 4 of unknown status.

somedude210:bborchar: My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic

And that gives a governor the right to ban a drug why? Imagine if 50 governors had the ability to ban medications. Based on what? What seems like a good reason? For farks sake, what seems like a good reason changes quite a lot from one state to the next.

somedude210:bborchar: My problem is where does governor have the power to do such a thing? And if he's allowed to do it, what's stopping other conservative governors from banning drugs like birth control?

Patrick can argue that this drug would be exasperating the opiate problem in MA. Sure, the conservative governors could do this for birth control, but unless they argue that there's a shortage of a population in the state, they wouldn't have the same reasoning to use the power.

But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic

I completely understand, and I'm not advocating for drug use. I'm simply saying that the governor doesn't and shouldn't have the ability to make decisions about which drugs are safe or not.

Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I just went to a funeral for a kid that OD'd on H and Fentanyl. I don't know if that's what was banned, but I don't think that will help. The omission of acetaminophen makes it a safer drug than that liver-killing crap they usually give you.

somedude210:This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

Without acetaminophen, it would be more difficult to OD on. Acetaminophen OD is very insidious because it doesn't show up until long after the drug has been administered -- a day or two later -- and at that point a liver transplant is basically the only way to prevent death. In that sense, this drug is safer w.r.t. OD than competing painkillers as there is no acetaminophen present.

Private_Citizen:This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.

The FDA already approved this, despite their own researchers going "yeah, this is a terrible drug and shouldn't be allowed to be consumed by the public. It's legalize opium in pill form. Don't do this," The FDA won't do a damn thing to it. Massachusetts, however, is facing a massive increase in fatal opiate overdoses in the last few years. Patrick is running out of things to do to counter this and this drug going into the legal market has just farked shiat up even more for MA, ME and NH (who are all facing opiate epidemics)

Is this an ideal solution? No, but the Feds letting this get approved for sale in the country did these states no favors in their efforts to curb fatal overdoses

/not to mention Congress not approving funding for the anti-overdose drug to the states

beefoe:Private_Citizen: I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.

I think this is the first time in the history of the internet that someone admits to being swayed by a comment. Good on you!!

Private_Citizen:I came to be snarky about a mere State Governor challenging the authority of the corporate overlords, but the point about conservative governors banning birth control is well taken.

This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.

The FDA is toothless thanks to our Republican friends in Congress who feel that "all regulation is bad hurr durr".

Keep in mind that the entire reason that New England is dealing with such a large Heroin epidemic at all is largely because of big Pharma who were pushing doctors to prescribe OxyContin and the like for every little ache and pain resulting in a huge amount of hard core opiates in everyone's medicine cabinets. By the time they realized how many people were getting hooked on them for recreational purposes, they cracked down hard on their availability and for example, required that if the pills were crushed they would turn to a goop instead of a powder. However, this was akin to closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out. What happened was that you were left with a large addict population and with pills going on the black market for $40-$60 a pop on the low end the heroin dealers swooped in and were like "you should try this. It's like Oxys only cheaper and way easier to get".

somedude210:Private_Citizen: This would set a bad, bad precedent. Fight it at the FDA level.

The FDA already approved this, despite their own researchers going "yeah, this is a terrible drug and shouldn't be allowed to be consumed by the public. It's legalize opium in pill form. Don't do this," The FDA won't do a damn thing to it. Massachusetts, however, is facing a massive increase in fatal opiate overdoses in the last few years. Patrick is running out of things to do to counter this and this drug going into the legal market has just farked shiat up even more for MA, ME and NH (who are all facing opiate epidemics)

Is this an ideal solution? No, but the Feds letting this get approved for sale in the country did these states no favors in their efforts to curb fatal overdoses

/not to mention Congress not approving funding for the anti-overdose drug to the states

Interestingly, opiates are not ideal for chronic pain. Meanwhile, halucinogens are showing great promise with much reduced risk.

So we're fighting tooth and nail over a potentially poisoned cheese lump while Andrew Jackson's two ton wheel is probably one vote away.

Valiente:1) Make all illegal drugs legal.2) Do a crime on said drugs, we harvest your organs untainted by said drugs, and turn the carcass into Soylent Drugs.3) Nobody supports my initiatives!4) FREEEDOM!

somedude210:But I understand where you're coming from and am inclined to agree that this will have terrible consequences for those living in conservative states, but you also need to understand that since the recession started, we have an absolutely awful heroin epidemic

Eh... I'm more inclined to believe that it's more closely related to the prolonged land war in a country that produces large amounts of opium products. Kind of like how there was a heroine epidemic right after Vietnam, there is now a heroine epidemic right after Afghanistan.

They were both heavily protested too. Though with less anti-troop mentality and no draft.

mike_d85:FTFA: "Every opioid medication is addictive," Galer said. "We are not alone. We should not be singled out. ... Our goal is for the governor to remove the ban and to be treated like every other opioid medication on the market."

OK, ban all opioids.

Tall all the prohibition rhetoric you want, offering one of the most addictive substances on the planet to people as medicine is not that great of an idea. Especially considering that it's prescribed so commonly that the majority of heroine addicts I've known started with pills. And I've known plenty: 2 dead, 1 in prison, 4 of unknown status.

So the problem of abusing a medication that has a place in medical use is to ban it outright? No, I don't think so. The problem isn't the drug, it is the over-prescribing by doctors. Which, by the way, the governor has the authority to combat. It isn't the easy path forward, but it is the right path forward.

I too have known my share of heroin/opiod addicts, and I blame the pushers: the doctors that prescribed the medicne to begin with without proper oversight/patient interaction. I also have known 2 people that may or may not be addicted, but have a good medical reasons for opioid use, both related to spinal injury problems. Banning these substances would reduce their quality of life. Both hold full time jobs that they are able to actually function in because of prescription opioids.

wyltoknow:Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

This is a very powerful opiate that is legal to sell via prescription and was approved by the FDA in shady as fark circumstances. Patrick is doing more about this problem then just banning this one drug. MA recently passed a bill putting the anti-overdose drug (I forget the name) as standard equipment for paramedics, we've implemented an incredibly successful drug court program that focuses on rehabilitation and not imprisonment and this drug came out of no where and has tossed a massive monkey wrench into the works to counter the epidemic.

as for the causes, the cost of prescription opiates that the pill popping craze started with years ago have become incredibly expensive and heroin has dropped in price and gives you a similar high, so the pill-poppers have all started to switch to heroin and went from spending $300/week to $300/month. Boston's NPR station did a very in-depth investigation when Markey was trying to help Taunton out with the opiate problem

wyltoknow:Even if there is a huge problem with opiads in the state, what does banning this one drug do? Absolutely nothing. Even if patrick banned every opiad, which would be insane, it still would hardly dent the problem. Just another politician pretending that theyre fixing the problem. How about some actual solutions? Why is opiate abuse so heavy in the state? What is causing people to turn to this drug? Where are the efforts to rehabilitate?

I'm guessing if you dig down, you'll find that the governor has close ties to some other opioid manufacturer. A friend or relative, a significant investment, big campaign donor, etc.

jshine:somedude210: This is the one that should've never gotten through the FDA and is very very very easy to overdose on, right?

Without acetaminophen, it would be more difficult to OD on. Acetaminophen OD is very insidious because it doesn't show up until long after the drug has been administered -- a day or two later -- and at that point a liver transplant is basically the only way to prevent death. In that sense, this drug is safer w.r.t. OD than competing painkillers as there is no acetaminophen present.

this.

basically this drug seems safe for addicts. that relative false sense of safety has negative consequences but i don't think these addicts will stop taking drugs just because this one isn't easily available. Aside from the obvious issues about whether the governor has the authority to go over the FDA on this... there are also moral issues about promoting a policy that may result in more overdoses to what... punish addicts?

What Zogenix isn't saying here is that the clinical studies have shown that taken with alcohol enhances the overall buzz a taker receives...which puts the chances of this drug being abused as a party drug by the intelligence-challenged group meteorically.

"Was the FDA asleep at the wheel on this one? What were they thinking when they approved such a dangerous drug?Actually, they were probably thinking about the patients, the ones who are suffering constantly and for whom nothing works to alleviate their pain."